About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

So that is your definition in reference to apes because -- ? gorillas and bonobos etc. stand upright with 2 arms and 2 legs? And have faces that resemble humans to an extent, rather than cats or dogs? OK, cats don't walk upright for the most part.

No. When it comes to other apes you cannot name a biological trait that all of the rest of them have that we do not have. Number of teeth, type of teeth, the way all of our joints work. The list goes on and on. You would want to talk to a biologist that can name others. For cats and dogs there are clear differences that they have as a group and that humans do not have as a group.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to stop mentioning that birds are birds even if they don't interbreed in all the species among themselves. Because while speciation is certainly possible, it does not mean that birds are apes. Now I can only imagine that the different varieties of birds may have separated from one type of bird. But then maybe not, since logically I suppose it takes two birds to tango. So there had to be TWO I suppose, at the beginning of procreation of bird population.

I do not care about mentioning birds. What bothers me is the rather idiotic "A dog remains a dog". The theory of evolution predicts that too which is why it is a stupid argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is one definition of species and probably the most common. It is not the only one. But yes, when they can no longer interbreed successfully they are different species.

Remember, a journey of a thousand miles has to start with a single step. Speciation is the very first step.

A different species? What happened to speciation? Oops -- I guess I need to figure out the difference between species and speciation. I mean like these new birds discovered because of interbreeding and no longer being able to interbreed with their old paramours, how does that fit in with species and speciation. The new type that cannot interbreed are called a new species? Not a new speciation, if that is such a word in that sense? So what again does speciation mean and how is it different from species?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A different species? What happened to speciation? Oops -- I guess I need to figure out the difference between species and speciation. I mean like these new birds discovered because of interbreeding and no longer being able to interbreed with their old paramours, how does that fit in with species and speciation. The new type that cannot interbreed are called a new species? Not a new speciation, if that is such a word in that sense? So what again does speciation mean and how is it different from species?

Speciation is when one species becomes two different species. That is all. And you cannot say that one is a "new type". They are both the still the same type.

The problem is that many people think of species in a creationist way. A particular species name is just a temporary name for a population of animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. When it comes to other apes you cannot name a biological trait that all of the rest of them have that we do not have. Number of teeth, type of teeth, the way all of our joints work. The list goes on and on. You would want to talk to a biologist that can name others. For cats and dogs there are clear differences that they have as a group and that humans do not have as a group.

As much as I might want to see the scientists' definition of human including them as apes, it seems clear to me that humans do not hang and swing by natural incination from trees. I think monkeys and gorillas do that. But right now i'm going to stop there -- except to say that the so-called "Unknown Common Ancestor" just has not been determined. I won't even go into Lucy now because I don't know that much about it, like if they think she did not swing from trees. So all these branches or species(?) stemming from that Common Ancestor...unknown what, and when.
Now I'm beginning to wonder how many initial "common ancestors" there were, and at what point did they break out into the various sectors. The fact that similarities may be there does not mean that humans came about by natural selection. Yes, I believe they are far different from humans.
Since I believe in the Bible and feel it comes from a higher source of intelligence, I will say that just like elephants' brains are not human brains, neither are gorillas' brains like human brains. I think that's about it for now, again I thank you, you are making me think about it and I appreciate that, I know I don't know everything about the Bible's explanation and I won't go any further with that now as contrasting to the ToE for the most part. Except to say that elephants' brains are different than human brains and same for gorillas and monkeys. I can understand the process of evolution. In contrast, however, the Bible offers me an explanation I do not overturn or bury. So if I meet Moses someday, I hope to find out how he knew these things since he was not alive when the earth was created and life began.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As much as I might want to see the scientists' definition of human including them as apes, it seems clear to me that humans do not hang and swing by natural incination from trees. I think monkeys and gorillas do that. But right now i'm going to stop there -- except to say that the so-called "Unknown Common Ancestor" just has not been determined. I won't even go into Lucy now because I don't know that much about it, like if they think she did not swing from trees. So all these branches or species(?) stemming from that Common Ancestor...unknown what, and when.
Now I'm beginning to wonder how many initial "common ancestors" there were, and at what point did they break out into the various sectors. The fact that similarities may be there does not mean that humans came about by natural selection. Yes, I believe they are far different from humans.
Since I believe in the Bible and feel it comes from a higher source of intelligence, I will say that just like elephants' brains are not human brains, neither are gorillas' brains like human brains. I think that's about it for now, again I thank you, you are making me think about it and I appreciate that, I know I don't know everything about the Bible's explanation and I won't go any further with that now as contrasting to the ToE for the most part. Except to say that elephants' brains are different than human brains and same for gorillas and monkeys. I can understand the process of evolution. In contrast, however, the Bible offers me an explanation I do not overturn or bury. So if I meet Moses someday, I hope to find out how he knew these things since he was not alive when the earth was created and life began.

If you read the Bible literally you refute it. Why would you do that as a Christian? If you read the Bible literally you are calling your god a liar. Why would you do that??

As to your rather cartoonish definition of apes, humans can swing from one arms in trees. Cats can't, nor can dogs.

And yes, there are endless common ancestors as we go back because there were endless speciation events. Why is that a problem? Why do you think that we need to find any of them?

You keep using such incredibly poor arguments. Most of them can be refuted by a "So what?"

Can you try to form an actual argument? One based upon logic and ideally evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course they are "still birds'. I truly wish that you would drop that YEC argument. You keep forgetting that you are still an ape. In fact you are still a monkey.

Do you know what a Strawman Argument is?

If I say that you believe that you will live forever because some Jewish guy got nailed to a tree that would be a Strawman Argument since that is a gross mischaracterization of what you believe. If you were insulted by someone using that argument against you I would not blame you. You are essentially making the same argument when you claim that evolution predicts a change of kind.

The comparison you're bringing up is ridiculous. That's about all I want to say about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you read the Bible literally you refute it. Why would you do that as a Christian? If you read the Bible literally you are calling your god a liar. Why would you do that??

As to your rather cartoonish definition of apes, humans can swing from one arms in trees. Cats can't, nor can dogs.

And yes, there are endless common ancestors as we go back because there were endless speciation events. Why is that a problem? Why do you think that we need to find any of them?

You keep using such incredibly poor arguments. Most of them can be refuted by a "So what?"

Can you try to form an actual argument? One based upon logic and ideally evidence?

It's not like I haven't been thinking. I do read the Bible literally when I believe it's literal. I don't know about you. But again, it really does take two birds to make another bird, doesn't it. I cannot account for everything but I do know that each day of creation is not 24 hours. And the last or 7th day has not ended yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. When it comes to other apes you cannot name a biological trait that all of the rest of them have that we do not have. Number of teeth, type of teeth, the way all of our joints work. The list goes on and on. You would want to talk to a biologist that can name others. For cats and dogs there are clear differences that they have as a group and that humans do not have as a group.

As I said, I've been thinking about it and still I believe (not know because to me know means I have seen it) that God told Adam from dust you are and to dust you will return. Somehow God made bodies from dust or soil at the beginning maybe not every body because bodies or organisms multiply. I wasn't there. And genetics certainly plays a productive part in producing life. So the question is about DNA evidence. But I'll wait until I do more reading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The comparison you're bringing up is ridiculous. That's about all I want to say about that.

How is it "ridiculous". Your argument is not any different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not like I haven't been thinking. I do read the Bible literally when I believe it's literal. I don't know about you. But again, it really does take two birds to make another bird, doesn't it. I cannot account for everything but I do know that each day of creation is not 24 hours. And the last or 7th day has not ended yet.

None of Genesis is meant to be read literally. It is all fiction and legend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, I've been thinking about it and still I believe (not know because to me know means I have seen it) that God told Adam from dust you are and to dust you will return. Somehow God made bodies from dust or soil at the beginning maybe not every body because bodies or organisms multiply. I wasn't there. And genetics certainly plays a productive part in producing life. So the question is about DNA evidence. But I'll wait until I do more reading.

And that never happened, unless you want to claim that God is a liar/

I can't help if if you have no scientific education at all. But I can show you Christian scientists that do know that you are calling God a liar.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not care about mentioning birds. What bothers me is the rather idiotic "A dog remains a dog". The theory of evolution predicts that too which is why it is a stupid argument.

How is it "ridiculous". Your argument is not any different.

OK, let me go back for a moment to the 32 teeth situation among orangutans and humans. Skipping over some statements by scientists in this area, I'm thinking -- orangutans and humans cannot interbreed. I suppose the presumption must be made that somehow they came from a common ancestor before orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans. Those in that which is called the ape population. Do you agree that they must have had, according to the theory, a common ancestor, or do you think that is not so?

 

[YoursTrue]

And that never happened, unless you want to claim that God is a liar/

I can't help if if you have no scientific education at all. But I can show you Christian scientists that do know that you are calling God a liar.

How is that? Since you don't believe in God or the Bible at all, that is not a valid reference to say that "Christian scientists" say I'm calling God a liar. I suppose there are some scientists that are Catholic, others that are Jewish, others that are Protestant. Please don't lose the argument over that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let me go back for a moment to the 32 teeth situation among orangutans and humans. Skipping over some statements by scientists in this area, I'm thinking -- orangutans and humans cannot interbreed. I suppose the presumption must be made that somehow they came from a common ancestor before orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans. Those in that which is called the ape population. Do you agree that they must have had, according to the theory, a common ancestor, or do you think that is not so?

What "presumption". You need to stop using inappropriate language. We know of the common ancestor due to evidence. Do you accept DNA tests for determining the father of a child? Is that a "presumption"?

Try asking again and use more appropriate language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that? Since you don't believe in God or the Bible at all, that is not a valid reference to say that "Christian scientists" say I'm calling God a liar. I suppose there are some scientists that are Catholic, others that are Jewish, others that are Protestant. Please don't lose the argument over that.

You need to work on your logical reasoning. There is no need for others to believe in your God to point out that you are calling your God a liar. Why on Earth do you think that is required at all? That makes no sense.

Let's see if you can follow this simple argument. You believe that God created the world, right? If I am wrong at any point then feel free to interrupt. You keep refusing to learn what is and what is not evidence. So unfortunately you are not able to comment on the next step. But all of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution. None of it support creationism. I even started a thread to help creationists find evidence for their beliefs, but none of them could find any. So since God made the world, that would mean that he made all of the evidence that tells us that life is the product of evolution. Your inability to understand evidence does not refute this. That means that if your God exist he had to purposely plant false evidence to cover up his evil deeds. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. Since you claim the creation myth is true all off the rest follows and your are claiming that God planted false evidence and is a liar.

 

[Astrophile]

First I guess I need to understand what YECs believe I guess.

Let me explain, and change the question. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the Earth and the rest of the universe in six days of 24 hours each, no more than 10,000 years ago; they also believe that the sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contain were deposited by the Biblical flood. Henry Morris's book Scientific Creationism (published in 1974) gives a good account of the beliefs of Young Earth Creationists.

Since you are not a YEC, I should like to know how old you think the Earth is, and whether you accept the geological time scale - see https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.php - that geologists have established by radiometric dating during the last 100 years.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me explain, and change the question. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the Earth and the rest of the universe in six days of 24 hours each, no more than 10,000 years ago; they also believe that the sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contain were deposited by the Biblical flood. Henry Morris's book Scientific Creationism (published in 1974) gives a good account of the beliefs of Young Earth Creationists.

Since you are not a YEC, I should like to know how old you think the Earth is, and whether you accept the geological time scale - see https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.php - that geologists have established by radiometric dating during the last 100 years.

I can't speak for the radiometric scale now because I don't fully truly understand it and would have to learn more about it but I think based on the layers of soil and rock it would take more than 10,000 years. And since I do not believe each said day of creation is 24 hours each, I understand it to be a much longer period of time . Considering that the last day is not said to have ended, it's important to keep that in mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to work on your logical reasoning. There is no need for others to believe in your God to point out that you are calling your God a liar. Why on Earth do you think that is required at all? That makes no sense.

Let's see if you can follow this simple argument. You believe that God created the world, right? If I am wrong at any point then feel free to interrupt. You keep refusing to learn what is and what is not evidence. So unfortunately you are not able to comment on the next step. But all of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution. None of it support creationism. I even started a thread to help creationists find evidence for their beliefs, but none of them could find any. So since God made the world, that would mean that he made all of the evidence that tells us that life is the product of evolution. Your inability to understand evidence does not refute this. That means that if your God exist he had to purposely plant false evidence to cover up his evil deeds. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. Since you claim the creation myth is true all off the rest follows and your are claiming that God planted false evidence and is a liar.

Your comment does not make that much sense to me because if I thought all those calling themselves Christian were truly Christian then I'd follow your question .